Sojourner553

I am starting a new post that Bede has basically requested.

Sojourner553

Bede, first let me summarize what I see are the points in the article, then I will get to your specific question:

1. New historical estimates indicate maybe only 40K to 100K witches were executed in Europe. Earlier estimates of millions were inflated (with a hint this exaggeration was done purposefully by individuals with an “agenda”—such ase feminists who wanted to exaggerate women’s suffering at the hands of men.)

2. Most of these executions occurred during or after the Reformation (ie during the 15th century)

3. A good number of the executions occurred in SECULAR as opposed to RELIGIOUS courts.

Reponses:

1. Regarding whether it was tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions: I am always for more accurate data. Hopefully the historians can sort this out.
But whether it was millions of people executed as witches vs. 40-100,000 this wasn’t the important issue for me.
Anyone disagree? That only when MILLIONS of innocent people are killed that one should take notice? (I realize this is like asking if the Nazis had killed only 100,000 innocent Jewish civilians, would no one have paid attention? I also realize that six million represents a significant percentage of the total Jewish population – and therefore qualifies for genocide. ) Does it take genocide levels for us to be “shocked”?
Not only are not the exact magnitude of deaths/executions the important issue-- BUT THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY DIED.
Torture is especially repulsive to me! (On a personal note, I would rather be cleanly killed rather than tortured. I have already told my family, if I am alive but in intolerable pain, I’d rather have the plug pulled on me, thank you very much).

There were something like 110,000 witch trials documented, but not all of these had records of convictions (a significant number had to record of the outcome). I would be interested in how many torture sessions there were, what were the methods and durations of torture, etc.

Why? Because reading the descriptions of these “devices”, I was actually more sickened by this than by the executions themselves. {This might be a personal affectation with me, and not shared by the majority of others, I cannot say}
Torture was first applied to heretics. Witches were later added as just another group of heretics

2. But was it not the Catholic Church that laid down the moral authority that called for the execution of witches – who were after all described as Satan’s willing partners in crime? Did not individuals believe they were being good Christians and following the Church’s moral dictatesby either actively or passively supporting the execution of witches?
Indeed, the official manual used by Church Inquisitors for trying witches,
"MALLEUS MALEFICARUM", claimed that:

"All witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which is in women insatiable."

And "Whatever is done for the safety of the State is merciful." {hum, I had wondered what books Ashcroft read.} }


The MALLEUS MALEFICARUM described how witches blighted crops, ate children, and caused disease through their evil spells. During these witch trials, by some estimates, hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of innocent victims (primarily women) were tortured, and then killed over the centuries-- often by being burned alive at the stake.

(3)Moreover most of the killing was done by secular courts. Church courts tried many witches but they usually imposed non-lethal penalties. A witch might be excommunicated, given penance, or imprisoned, but she was rarely killed.
According to Bainton in his book CHRISTIANITY (p 201), the clergy typically did not directly apply the torture or the executions. Instead the convicted heretic was always referred to the civil magistrate with a plea for mercy.--However it was understood that if mercy were ever given, then the magistrate would be excommunicated as a heretic himself.

For the author to say “rarely” killed, I would expect to see much better statistics than close to 50% (actually 48%; higher in Germany) of trials resulted in executions, which is mentioned at a later place by the same author.

I would like to see details on this. I have read how Cohn surmised that a good number of “witches” were probably early proto-Protestant heretics—ie this was the true reason why the number of witches executed coincided with the period before and during the Reformation.
(More on this later--because this is how I would really answer Bede's drilldown question)

It would make sense that if “criminal” was a Protestant heretic, that confession and repenting might gain their forgiveness. But I would need some better facts on this before saying this with more certainty.

Sojourner

Sojourner553

Modern historians have shown that (prior to the ninth century) most Christian intellectuals held that witchcraft was not a real phenomenon. Secondly, they note that it was only in the aftermath of the heresy trials, that Catholic intellectuals popularized the belief in witches within medieval society. THESE HISTORIANS MAINTAIN THAT THIS WAS NO MERE COINCIDENCE.

Norman Cohn strongly argued for this theory, in his book EUROPE'S INNER DEMONS (1975). He demonstrated that the INCREASED interest in witchcraft occurred primarily in the stronghold territories of heretics--that is, in
France, the Low Countries, northern Italy, and the Rhineland. He noted that the allegations made by the Church against heretics practicing
witchcraft were essentially the SAME as those made by the early pagans against Christians. That is, allegations of orgies, incest, cannibalism, and infanticide had been hurled at early Christians by Roman pagans.

When Cohn researched Catholic accusations of witchcraft aimed at dissident groups, he found that they almost always listed the SAME accusations--as if the Church had just copied the same text in attacking one dissident group to the next. Christian intellectuals and propagandists then took these accusations--and creatively interwove them into a general theme of the Devil conducting sexual orgies with his witch followers.

In the hysteria of the times, obviously many of the "witches" tried were NOT heretics. The Inquisition never came to England for example--yet there were still witch-hunts. Still, women were held to more easily succumb to the evil of the Devil, than men. In England, the vast majority of accused witches were elderly women.
Eccentric or mentally ill patients sometimes
interpreted their delusions as being from the devil--and would in turn, be accused of witchcraft and burned. In the superstition and hysteria of the times, some of these women actually interpreted ordinary events, as being
manifestations of the Devil.

Sojourner

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Bede

Sojourner,

Thank you for your response.

I think that the idea of heresy being linked in people's minds to witch craft is an extremely useful one - thanks for that. We know that heretics were usually accused of stuff that was found in books rather than what they were actually doing. It helps explain both the rise of witch persecutions and their fall once heresy was no longer such a live issue. But it leaves open the question as to why the inquisition in Spain and Italy, being more concerned with heresy than any one else, didn't bother much with witch trials. Perhaps the more advanced legal proceedures and higher standards of evidence required by the Inquisitions meant that witch persecution was not sustainable. We will need to think more about this.

On the inquisition, work by modern scholars like Edward Peters, HA Kelly and Henry Kamen has found most of what we believe is the result of Protestant polemic. They hardly ever used torture (and when they did it was supposed to be beating only), they allowed a defence and appeals (I have read this myself in inquisitors manuals) and punishment was mild for a first offence (only on a second offence could you be handed to the secular arm.) On the other hand I have never seen the plea for mercy from the secular arm - maybe this came later - I don't know. However, I do not want to get into a discussion on inquisition at this juncture.

Finally you say "During these witch trials, by some estimates, hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of innocent victims (primarily women) were tortured, and then killed over the centuries." We now know this to be an exaggeration, so why repeat it?

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Vesica

This link is an intresting 'summing' up providing 10 types of explanations for why 1400-1800 saw such an explosion of accused witches and trials.

It provides specific 'sub-theories' for each and problems with such explanations.

<a href="http://www.kings.edu/womens_history/worigin.html" target="_blank">Origins and Causes of Witch Hunts</a>

Vesica

I think it is very important that these witch hunts occurred not in the depths of the 'Dark Ages' but instead as European society was rising into the Ren.

It was certainly a time of change and new ideas, which can be presumed to be a stressful time. While stress can be positive or negative, the extensive change to everyday life surely gave rise to conflict and tension among groups. A lot was going on just then....

Bede

Vesica,

Thanks for the link! It looks very helpful and has several more relevant pages attached to it. I expect Sojourner and I will be looking through them before continuing the discussion.

You are right to point out that witch hunts are part of the renaissance and not the dark or middle ages. This point is often missed.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Butters

The typical new Christian line.

Well, mistakes were made, but they wern;t all that bad. Sure there were the crusades, but Christians didn't really rape and kill all that many people,(and besides those heathen arabs deserved it). Sure there were inquisitions, but people weren't really tortured that bad.(maybe they were just tickled until they consessed). Oh, and the Spanish inquisition didn't go so much for witch trials? Maybe because they were busy enough torturing and killing people for hearesy, and didn't need to label them witchs. Sure a few witchs were burned, but not all that many. Sure the church had a few "misunderstanding with scientists, but really didn't burn all that many. Of course the blame for the holocaust was that damn atheist Hitler, the fact that both Catholic and Luthren preist spewed hatred for the Jews each Sunday from the pulpit had nothing to do with it. And the poor bishops and preists in Germany, what else could they do but stand by and watch, what would you have them do?, risk their lives standing up against evil? And yes, priests supported slavery by reading straight out of the Bible, but they were just misinterpreting it, and we have all that straighted out now. Give me a F***ing break!

lpetrich

One thing one has to be careful with in the Inquisition trials was that the appearance of good legal procedure could well have been nothing more than window dressing -- making them much like the trials of dissidents in the Soviet Union.

In fact, the paranoia about heretics and witches had a lot in common with official Stalinist paranoia about wreckers and spies and "enemies of the people". Though there was no big opposition movement, those troublemakers had allegedly been everywhere, causing industrial accidents, plotting to kill important Party members, etc. Even being late to work would sometimes be considered proof that one is an "enemy of the people".

Which made McCarthyism seem amateurish.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Bede

Butters, who are you talking to? To scholars who have the gall not to confirm your prejudices? Perhaps to some imaginary person who typifies all your angst. Look, I know it sucks to find your myths aren't actually true, I am a Christian after all, but I thought you freethinkers were made of sterner stuff.

What has been said on this thread that you thing is untrue or are you simply determined to screw yourself into a ball of self righteous disgust?

B